invoke_read_tool

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the detail that it refuses tools not annotated read-only and provides thorough cursor behavior explanation. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by a structured Args section. No unnecessary text, though cursor explanation could be slightly trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given annotations, the description provides sufficient context for safe usage. Missing details about the 'arguments' parameter and output are minor; overall it is complete for an invocation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 3 parameters with 0% coverage. Description explains 'name' as the tool name and 'cursor' in detail, but does not explain the 'arguments' parameter, which is generic and might require clarification. Partial compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it calls a read-only Aruba tool by name from find_tool, distinguishing it from invoke_tool which is for write/destructive tools. The verb 'call' and resource 'read-only Aruba tool' are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use this for read-only tools and to use invoke_tool for write/destructive tools only after explicit user intent. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.